edit: Animeniax: I am addressing your concerns about sig appropriateness in another thread. (Click here to be redirected.)
----------
Instead of writing a messy, multi-quote rebuttal I'll try to keep this short and to the point.
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights has a few things most Western countries agree that each individual human is entitled to simply for existing and being a human being. It is largely put in place to prevent oppression of individuals and groups - even minorities.Originally Posted by Animeniax
Amongst those things are Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Opinion. To prosecute someone for having thoughts about child sex violates these rights.
Article #9 states "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
That said, the rights of one individual will at times conflict with those of another. [Example: Freedom of Speech (threats) vs Freedom from Fear (to not feel threatenned).]
So what justification does the law have to prosecute, punish or even execute individuals? What makes a reason arbitrary and what makes it justifiable?
Do not dismiss the crimes: murder, rape and theft as "obvious" without thinking. They are crimes because such acts cause significant, proven harm to victims.
Other acts are criminalised because the risk for harm has been established. Smoking restrictions and speed limits are such examples.
Let's remember that our original discussion was not even about outlawing paedophilia itself, but banning the sale of loli-sex dolls. My interpretation of your quote below, Animaniax, is that neither has the harm been quantified nor has the causation been established.
Paedophilia and such topics cause a knee-jerk reaction within the general public because everyone gets touchy once child safety is involved and the vast majority have no interest in the rights of paedophiles. Do not forget that they too are humans. Don't oppress them without a good reason.Originally Posted by Animeniax